] "Who is Ed Bacon? For starters he is the father of Kevin
] Bacon. But more importantly, he is the architect who
] created LOVE Park, Dilworth Plaza (in front of City Hall)
] and the Municipal Services plaza. Basically he is the
] accidental genius behind creating the perfect atmosphere
] for street skateboarding.
]
] So why is he protesting? Ed Bacon thinks it's a shame
] that the city is turning its back on skateboarders."

What is it about age that makes people so closed minded. Why is it that this story seems ironic?

92 Years Old Ed Bacon Skateboards in LOVE Park

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 90-9 to approve the landmark Homeland Security bill. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was one of the few senators voting against it, and in an address on the Senate floor, he raised fundamental questions about the need for the new agency and whether it will have the desired impact. What follows is the full transcript of his remarks during the conclusion of the Homeland Security debate.

At least one person in the Senate knew to call the kettle black.

Robert Byrd's Speech on the Homeland Security Bill

Reknamorken wrote:
] Analysis of a leaked MS document showing UNIX superiority as a
] server in a webserver context at least.

Please do not read the "analysis" linked here. The register is a higly questionable source of information and this article is no exception. Click through to the actual article in question. It provides a fairly objective analysis of the two platforms. What I found most interesting about the article was where windows exceeded unix, rather then the other way around, and these seem to be performance related. IE if you know what you are doing, IIS is *FASTER* then Apache.

Of course, I would never actually run IIS. Its a security nightmare. They have to give me at least a year with no vulnerabilities before I'll say its worth the effort. But, if its FASTER, that means fewer machines and smaller racks, and that stuff adds up.

RE: Microsoft admits that UNIX is a superior server OS

Microsoft is aggressively pursuing digital rights management while simultaneously raising the cost of their software and systems. TCPA based computers are already on the market, and over the next two years this technology will have more and more impact on how consumers can use their computers.

Consumers will buy TCPA. They will buy it because they are being told that it protects them from viruses and hackers. However, when the DRM capabilities of this technology begin to rear their heads, consumers will be unhappy.

If consumers accept DRM with open arms this will be unprecedented. Previous efforts like DIVX failed miserably. Consumers don't choose products that limit their capabilities.

As these developments occur over the next two years, their are two platforms that will present themselves as viable options.

One is Apple. Apples can do pretty much anything you can do with your PC, with the same files. Apples suck less. (They are FAR from perfect, but they suck less.) They are expensive, but they also do not have DRM. Apple has clearly stated they don't believe DRM will actually work.

The other is Linux. Linux as a desktop isn't THERE yet. Its still clunky. But its ALMOST there, and companies like Lindows selling desktop linux machines at Walmart are incented to get it there. I can certainly imagine the remaining rough edges being smoothed out within the next two years.

So just as the Wintel platform begins telling you "I can't do that, dave." when you ask it to rip your CDs, a number of viable platform options will be reaching maturity.

However, while the home user's interest in information freedom might cause a large migration to Apple and Linux in the consumer market,
the corporate IT market may be very happy with TCPA. Corporate IT has intellectual property management and system administration needs that are well met by TCPA. It allows them to deploy desktops that
their employees can't really control. Central control means consistency and compliance. If general market conditions don't improve the price advantage of linux will look very attractive to corporate buyers, but if they have leeway to make expensive capital expenditures then the large companies will buy TCPA.

So the result that you may see by 2005 is a situation where most people use UNIX in the home and WINDOWS in the office.

There are a couple of caveats here:

1. The government: The government could pass laws making DRM mandatory, or limiting peoples ability to emulate popular windows file formats.

2. Mozilla. Mozilla is clunky. Its bad on linux. Its worse on OSX. IE is just plain better technology. Of all of the Microsoft products that I have used over the years, I am most impressed with it, except on the Mac, where their page rendering is a generation behind the times.

The web is the central part of our computing experience today, and for the forseeable future. If Mozilla doesn't improve, then these options will not be viable. Apple and the various linux vendors should invest in Mozilla's maturity.

I think there are a lot of implications of this for the copyright conflict, anti-trust conflicts, internet standards, etc...

What do YOU think?

] The radical deregulation of the radio industry allowed by the
] Telecommunications Act of 1996 has not benefited the public or
] musicians. Instead, it has led to less competition, fewer
] viewpoints, and less diversity in programming. Deregulation has
] damaged radio as a public resource.

The reason radio sucks is because of the deregulation of station ownership limits from the telecom act of 1996. This is an important conclusion.

The actual single reason why radio sucks.

I posted the following thoughts to Politech:

One can imagine that other then those who shouldn't be on these lists, no one is more annoyed about this activity then the FBI themselves. Clueless people who self-deputize generally do more harm then good to real security efforts. The fastest way to get them to stop is to have a recognized source of authority explain to them that they do not know what they are talking about.

The FBI ought to establish a web page which clearly explains the meaning of the list, explains that there are copies of the list circulating which are out of date or inaccurate, points the reader at up to date information about who the FBI is looking for, and explains that this information is subject to change and should not be considered permanently valid. Authoritative disclaimers have been useful in the past with respect to virus hoaxes. It might be useful here. And its a lot easier then having FBI agents deal with people who've been impacted by this on a case by case basis.

If the FBI wanted list was available in XML then people who wanted to cross-reference it with their databases could do so easily and be constantly up to date. Through such an effort they could easily turn a big mess into an effective tool for them.

Of course, this is the sort of thing that keeps privacy advocates up at night. There are all kinds of pit falls here, both legal (how can one prevent the misuse of the information) and technical (how can one prevent malicious modification of the information), but the implications ought to be considered anyway because one would think that the FBI will come up with something like this sooner or later. If the self-deputies kept up to date and accurate on who the FBI is looking for this would obviously be preferable to the situation we have now with this list. Its also greatly preferable to the "information awareness" effort on many levels.

Of course, I have no idea who needs to hear all of this.

-=-=-=-=-=-

I think I ought to make one more point...

Of course, this is the sort of thing that keeps privacy advocates up at night. There are all kinds of pit falls here...

I guess the question worth asking here is: What is my expectation of privacy with respect to a consumer database (like that of a car rental company) being shared with the FBI? Is this any different from said database being shared with a marketing company? Are there material differences between sharing the whole database, and telling the FBI that you found a particular record about an individual person they have expressed interest in? What is the difference between telling the FBI that you think you found a wanted person in your database, and telling the FBI that you think you saw a wanted person in your store (which is certainly legal)?

(I have my own ideas about how to answer these questions, but they are better addressed by a lawyer in a technical way in this context.)

] "Shortly after Sept. 11, the FBI had entrusted a quickly
] developed watch list to scores of corporations around the
] country. Departing from its usual practice of closely
] guarding such lists, the FBI circulated the names of
] hundreds of people it wanted to question.
]
] Counterterrorism officials gave the list to car-rental
] companies. Then FBI field agents and other officials
] circulated it to big banks, travel-reservations systems,
] firms that collect consumer data, as well as casino
] operators such as MGM Mirage, the owner of New York-New
] York. Additional recipients included businesses thought
] vulnerable to terrorist intrusion, including truckers,
] chemical companies and power-plant operators. It was the
] largest intelligence-sharing experiment the bureau has
] ever undertaken with the private sector.
]
] A year later, the list has taken on a life of its own, with
] multiplying -- and error-filled -- versions being passed around
] like bootleg music. Some companies fed a version of the list
] into their own databases and now use it to screen job
] applicants and customers."

There is nothing more annoying then a stupid person with some thin basis in authority who thinks they are helping.

politechbot.com: FBI's secret, post-9-11 watch list acquires a life of its own

Here are the pics from Neoteric and Abbadon's talk at PN6...

The 'why you suck' talk pics

] "The inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the
] 'knowledge management' idea is that it is, in large part,
] a management fad, promulgated mainly by certain
] consultancy companies, and the probability is that it
] will fade away like previous fads. It rests on two
] foundations: the management of information - where a
] large part of the fad exists (and where the 'search and
] replace marketing' phenomenon is found), and the
] effective management of work practices."

The nonsense of 'knowledge management'

Reknamorken wrote:
] Domain disputes are a dime a dozen, but legal experts say
] Visa's recent win over a one-man website is the first time a
] corporate trademark has prevailed over a word in the
] dictionary.
]
] [ Remember kids, Corporations have more rights than people.
] --Rek ]

I'd clarify that you get as much justice as you can afford, no matter who you are. (A small corporation would loose to a rich individual.)

This is a particularily bad judgement. I don't think it will be upheld on appeal. This is a straight forward instance of a judge not upholding the law. I'd love to read the decision. I can't imagine what sort of word smithery lead to the idea that Visa "owns" the word visa regardless of the context. Really a precident there. :-/

RE: Visa Suit: Dictionary Discredited